Tag Archives: Latker

The use of the patent system for federal research results, 2: Why universities patent

For an account that covers reasonably well the context for universities getting involved in patenting, see Elizabeth Popp Berman’s 2006 paper “Why Do Universities Patent? The Role of the Federal Government in Creating Modern Technology Transfer Practice” (draft here). What … Continue reading

Posted in History, Patents, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The use of the patent system for federal research results, 2: Why universities patent

Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk, 3

Norman Latker, formerly patent counsel at the NIH and chief architect of Bayh-Dole and its extension by Presidential memorandum to all federal contracting, argues that if federal inventions are not privately owned and exploited for their exclusionary and financial value, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk, 3

Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk, 2

Let’s return to Norman Latker’s talk from 1984, “Federal Initiatives for Innovation.” Keep in mind, Latker drafted the IPA master agreement, the Bayh-Dole Act, Reagan’s 1983 memorandum that displaced the Kennedy and Nixon patent policies, the 1984 amendments to Bayh-Dole … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk, 2

Senator Nelson on the problem of “public interest” in federal patent policy, 2

The federal public policy for inventions made in federally funded work then becomes “whatever the contractor that hosts the work chooses to do, so long as the contractor files a patent application.” In Bayh-Dole, there’s no federal review of a … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Senator Nelson on the problem of “public interest” in federal patent policy, 2

Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk

In 1984 Norman Latker, who as NIH patent counsel drafted the Bayh-Dole Act on the sly, gave a talk (“Federal Initiatives For Innovation“) to the American Intellectual Property Association. At the time, Latker worked for the Department of Commerce, and … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Technology Transfer, Vannever Bush | Tagged , | Comments Off on Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk

Latker Here, There, and Everywhere in Bayh-Dole

Norman J. Latker is the architect of present federal patent policy. Let’s work through his resume. It provides a remarkable tale of persistent influence leading to the unenforced, innovation-stagnating, dismal-performance (but it’s all kept secret, by law) Bayh-Dole Act. Latker … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , | Comments Off on Latker Here, There, and Everywhere in Bayh-Dole

For Latker, Bayh-Dole wins a political battle over delivery of research to the public

In February 1974, Norman J. Latker, patent counsel for the NIH, gave a talk in Chicago with the title “Progress Towards a Uniform U.S. Government Patent Policy for Universities and Non-Profit Organizations.” You can find most of it at IP … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , | Comments Off on For Latker, Bayh-Dole wins a political battle over delivery of research to the public

The IPA and Bayh-Dole on nonprofit assignment of subject inventions, 3

We are working through the approaches of the IPA master and Bayh-Dole’s standard patent rights clause to the assignment of inventions by nonprofit organizations. Unlike the IPA, which was a federal master contract made with selected organizations, Bayh-Dole is a … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Bayh-Dole on nonprofit assignment of subject inventions, 3

The IPA and Bayh-Dole on nonprofit assignment of subject inventions, 2

We have looked at the IPA assignment clause. Since the IPA is specific to nonprofits, there’s no reason to call out nonprofitedness. But there is a reason then to restrict any later invention assignment to nonprofit assignees. Why? The point … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Bayh-Dole on nonprofit assignment of subject inventions, 2

The IPA and Bayh-Dole on nonprofit assignment of subject inventions, 1

Norman Latker, patent counsel at the NIH, drafted Bayh-Dole on the sly, working against HEW policy on inventions to create an easier pathway by which nonprofits could pass exclusive control of inventions made in work receiving NIH funding to the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Bayh-Dole on nonprofit assignment of subject inventions, 1